I agree Fred, as to the context of the conversation. It’s not an easy issue for 
birders and reasonable minds can differ on these issues. 

I also have no problem with dealing with the “immigrant” swan population as 
humanely as possible. To me, the most palatable solution would probably be to 
prevent more cygnets and let the existing population live out their lives, 
though I also suspect that would be the most expensive way to deal with or 
solve the problem, with the DEC oiling and pricking eggs for decades. 

Frankly, I don’t know how the swan overpopulation on my local pond should be 
addressed, but I’d only be in favor of a dealing with it through a method that 
is decent and humane. I would like to see a return of some native waterfowl 
that I blame the swans for driving out. Certainly, it’s not necessary to 
eliminate every mute swan, but my opinion is that there needs to be some 
control of populations in certain places like Argyle Lake.  Argyle still holds 
the occasional birding surprise,  but native waterfowl numbers seem clearly to 
be down due to the proliferation of swans there. Hardly any waterfowl breed 
there now, besides the swans. 

Tim Dunn
Babylon, NY
Sent from my iPhone

> On Dec 4, 2017, at 7:54 PM, Frederick Kedenburg <kedenb...@optonline.net> 
> wrote:
> I don’t think Chris T-H needs to weigh in on this as it is a polite 
> conversation of an issue that we all know about.
> Many of us have opinions that will not be changed. That is everyones right.
> I have simply this one thing to say:
> I know many out there wish to eliminate the Swans for what they believe are 
> scientific reasons. 
> I think the Mute Swan, now that they have been here for over a century, have 
> as much a right to live as any immigrant does today.
> Their numbers and the damage they do is really negligible compared to other 
> species. 
> Are not Swans now to be considered naturalized and a beauty for all to 
> behold? I think they need this protection.
> rk
>> On Dec 4, 2017, at 6:21 PM, Michael Cooper <mike5...@icloud.com> wrote:
>> Well said Tim, but I think I hear the footsteps of 
>> Chris T-H on the way, so I’m going to mention a bird in this post and “duck” 
>> out of the way of the ban hammer!
>> Mike Cooper
>> Ridge LI NY
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>> On Dec 4, 2017, at 6:03 PM, Tim Dunn <timd...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>> Fred and any others interested, 
>>> Two mute swans by you is no problem. Up to 65 can be seen on any given day 
>>> on Argyle Lake in Babylon.  It is a pond that is less than 1/4 mile in 
>>> circumference.  All other breeding waterfowl here have been eradicated by 
>>> these swans. Some migrant waterfowl use the pond but less than in the past. 
>>> Few dabbling ducks use it as swans have eaten all vegetation on the bottom 
>>> of the pond to as far as their long necks can reach. 
>>> Geese come and go in migration here, but the mute swans are a constant.  So 
>>> I would expect that the reason that DEC wants to control them is that they 
>>> are an invasive species that is destroying the local ecosystem and driving 
>>> out native species. Maybe not happening by you, but definitely happening 
>>> here in western Suffolk. 
>>> Non-birders are aware of this issue because it appeared in the newspapers 
>>> when the DEC came out and said they would start removing the swans. That 
>>> typically means shooting, trapping, poisoning, etc. Hardly anyone likes the 
>>> idea of culling these birds through cruel and inhumane ways (including me), 
>>> so the subject comes up for a debate that has reached beyond birders and 
>>> wildlife people from time to time.  My understanding is that egg oiling and 
>>> similar tactics are being used, or at least are up for discussion, to 
>>> control the population. 
>>> Since they are an invasive and destructive species, any connection that an 
>>> observer feels to wildlife by viewing feral mute swans is based entirely on 
>>> a lack of understanding of the natural world around them. You might have 
>>> done more for the guy you ran into today if you had told him that if it 
>>> weren’t for those swans, he might be seeing ten different species of 
>>> waterfowl that they have driven away.  Beauty is obviously in the eye of 
>>> the beholder, but I’d prefer green-wing teal and pintails to those swans. 
>>> (And sociologically speaking, to me those swans represent the escaped stock 
>>> of early successful Americans anxious to imitate the “Lords of the Manor” 
>>> in Europe, who are the same folks that my Irish ancestors fled to America 
>>> to get away from.) 
>>> While stepping around goose droppings and occasionally having to hit the 
>>> brakes to allow a goose flock to cross the street is an inconvenience, I 
>>> don’t think it has nearly the adverse effect on the local environment that 
>>> the swans have had in my part of Long Island. 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Tim Dunn
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>> On Dec 4, 2017, at 4:58 PM, Frederick Kedenburg <kedenb...@optonline.net> 
>>>> wrote:
>>>> Although yes, I do know this issue was posted locally on the NF, yet it 
>>>> still has many repercussions to birders throughout NYS therefore I am 
>>>> posting.
>>>> If you wish to eradicate Mute Swan I am sorry.
>>>> rk
>>>> North Fork LI NY: I went looking for the reported Snowy at the Mattituck 
>>>> Inlet Breakwater today but although I looked along the Beach, east & west 
>>>> and patrolled the DEC conservation and boat ramp area I could not find it. 
>>>> I’ll try again as once the species shows up it can be persistent. The 
>>>> predominant waterfowl there today was Long-tailed Duck. It was good to 
>>>> hear their call once again this season.
>>>> After some coffee and a late breakfast in Mattituck I went to Laurel Lake.
>>>> There were plentiful numbers of Ring-necked Duck, Ruddy Duck and American 
>>>> Coot. Also seen were one Great Blue Heron, one Pied Billed Grebe and a 
>>>> Gadwall.
>>>> As an aside:
>>>> There were two Mute Swan in the Laurel Lake compared to hundreds of Canada 
>>>> Geese there today.
>>>> Why does the NYS-DEC seem so preoccupied with extirpating all the Mute 
>>>> Swan and is doing next to nothing in addressing the vast numbers of Canada 
>>>> Geese in NYS. The geese cause so much damage to wetlands and to water 
>>>> quality due to the hugh amount of poop they produce. Loading nitrogen into 
>>>> our bays and wetlands is only part of the problem. Maneuvering about many 
>>>> parking lots and commercial businesses with grass without encountering 
>>>> poop is problematic.
>>>> I understand from DEC records that the Mute Swan population in NYS is 
>>>> somewhere between 2800 and 3500. Please correct me if I am wrong.
>>>> As I was looking through my scope this morning at Laurel Lake a fellow 
>>>> came along walking his dog and asked me what I was looking at. I gave him 
>>>> a brief description of the species there and he said to me. “Why do they 
>>>> want to kill all the swans? He continued to say “I love the Swans, they 
>>>> are so beautiful and my kids love to see them as well”. I wondered how an 
>>>> average person had come to know about this issue.
>>>> My point here is that I believe the Mute Swan, although yes it is an 
>>>> ‘invasive species’, does more good than harm as it helps connect people 
>>>> with a world around them they did not know before. The Swans in effect 
>>>> connect people to nature and help create a culture of conservation that 
>>>> helps us all.
>>>> As for Canada Geese I have nothing against them; however, to put thing 
>>>> into perspective when I do the DEC Winter Waterfowl Census in January I 
>>>> frequently find about 3,000 Canada Geese in the fields along Oregon Road 
>>>> Mattituck NY alone. Imagine how many statewide.
>>>> In my opinion the DEC needs to get their priorities in the correct order 
>>>> and concern themselves with a gradual reduction in the population of 
>>>> Canada Geese. Whether it be through addling of eggs or a more lenient view 
>>>> when it comes to hunting and or donation of the take to food banks 
>>>> something must be done.
>>>> rk
>>>> -- 
>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>>>> "North Fork Birds" group.
>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>>>> email to north-fork-birds+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>>> --
>>>> NYSbirds-L List Info:
>>>> Welcome and Basics
>>>> Rules and Information
>>>> Subscribe, Configuration and Leave
>>>> Archives:
>>>> The Mail Archive
>>>> Surfbirds
>>>> ABA
>>>> Please submit your observations to eBird!
>>>> --
>>> --
>>> NYSbirds-L List Info:
>>> Welcome and Basics
>>> Rules and Information
>>> Subscribe, Configuration and Leave
>>> Archives:
>>> The Mail Archive
>>> Surfbirds
>>> ABA
>>> Please submit your observations to eBird!
>>> --
>> --
>> NYSbirds-L List Info:
>> Welcome and Basics
>> Rules and Information
>> Subscribe, Configuration and Leave
>> Archives:
>> The Mail Archive
>> Surfbirds
>> ABA
>> Please submit your observations to eBird!
>> --
> --
> NYSbirds-L List Info:
> Welcome and Basics
> Rules and Information
> Subscribe, Configuration and Leave
> Archives:
> The Mail Archive
> Surfbirds
> Please submit your observations to eBird!
> --


NYSbirds-L List Info:

1) http://www.mail-archive.com/nysbirds-l@cornell.edu/maillist.html
2) http://www.surfbirds.com/birdingmail/Group/NYSBirds-L
3) http://birding.aba.org/maillist/NY01

Please submit your observations to eBird:


Reply via email to